Starmer

[headshot]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ir-starmer

He has now.

[Tristan]

Good.

[headshot]

Probably had to workshop a shortlist of responses through several committees and focus groups before issuing it.

[El Pollo Diablo]

This whole thing is so f.cking depressing. f.cks sake.

[jimbob]

This whole thing is so f.cking depressing. f.cks sake.

Absolutely

[monkey]

My prediction is that more things are going to be noticed until Starmer quits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-messages

[monkey]

My prediction is that more things are going to be noticed until Starmer quits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-watchdog

[IvanV]

Starmer has himself now also described it as "un-British" to protest about the condition of Palestinians in the wake of the Manchester synagogue stabbing incident, and very unfortunate additional "friendly fire" casualties inflicted by the police, in support of earlier comments by the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.

This seems to me to be making the same category mistake as the synagogue stabber himself, namely treating the government of Israel and individual Jewish people as if they were equivalent.

[bjn]

My 16 year old pointed that out.

[bob sterman]

Since this is relevant to the future of Starmer...

Some very interesting word choices by Rachel Reeves today - that suggest Starmer will be ditching her soon to take the fall for a range of things.

"I will make the choices necessary to deliver strong foundations for our economy"

"There is a lot of speculation about the choices that I will make."

"the choices I make in the Budget this month"

Throughout the speech - all the choices about stuff people won't like were hers alone - and all the good stuff (building houses, infrastructure, bearing down on NHS waiting lists) were collective - things "we" are doing.

I don't think this is coincidental - I reckon Starmer has told her to create some distance between them.

[snoozeofreason]

Since this is relevant to the future of Starmer...

Some very interesting word choices by Rachel Reeves today - that suggest Starmer will be ditching her soon to take the fall for a range of things.

"I will make the choices necessary to deliver strong foundations for our economy"

"There is a lot of speculation about the choices that I will make."

"the choices I make in the Budget this month"

Throughout the speech - all the choices about stuff people won't like were hers alone - and all the good stuff (building houses, infrastructure, bearing down on NHS waiting lists) were collective - things "we" are doing.

I don't think this is coincidental - I reckon Starmer has told her to create some distance between them.

It's hard to imagine any conversation in which Starmer could have persuaded Reeves to do that. I am trying, but my mind keeps going back to a Beyond the Fringe sketch from over sixty years ago.

War's a psychological thing, Perkins, rather like a game of football. You know how, in a game of football, ten men often play better than eleven?

Yes sir.

Perkins, we're asking you to be that one man.

[Tristan]

Since this is relevant to the future of Starmer...

Some very interesting word choices by Rachel Reeves today - that suggest Starmer will be ditching her soon to take the fall for a range of things.

"I will make the choices necessary to deliver strong foundations for our economy"

"There is a lot of speculation about the choices that I will make."

"the choices I make in the Budget this month"

Throughout the speech - all the choices about stuff people won't like were hers alone - and all the good stuff (building houses, infrastructure, bearing down on NHS waiting lists) were collective - things "we" are doing.

I don't think this is coincidental - I reckon Starmer has told her to create some distance between them.

I doubt that's it. The treasury makes decisions on the budget. That's her job. The good stuff (building houses, fixing the NHS etc.) is delivered by others in government.

[bob sterman]

I doubt that's it. The treasury makes decisions on the budget. That's her job. The good stuff (building houses, fixing the NHS etc.) is delivered by others in government.

Yes - but most politicians, if they knew they were about to serve up something likely to be unpopular would try to share the blame with plenty by using "we" as much as possible.

For example, in her 2024 Budget speech, Reeves said "WE will increase the rate of Employers’ National Insurance" and "WE will reduce the Secondary Threshold" and " WE will increase the lower rate of Capital Gains Tax from 10% to 18%, and the Higher Rate from 20% to 24%".

[Grumble]

The briefing, counter briefing and reversals from Reeves and Starmer are extraordinary. Although rather depressingly reminiscent of the last Tory government.

[Tristan]

The briefing, counter briefing and reversals from Reeves and Starmer are extraordinary. Although rather depressingly reminiscent of the last Tory government.

Yeah. Disappointing.

And FFS just put up income tax on us all. Take the pain now, make the fixe, and run on improved services/country in 3-4 years time.

[Grumble]

I’m pretty sure that the way this works is as follows:
I have a policy idea that some SPADs have cooked up. One of them has a chat with a friendly journalist, mainly to see how many people shoot at it. Lots of people shoot at it. The policy idea is dropped. Rinse and repeat.

[TopBadger]

And FFS just put up income tax on us all. Take the pain now, make the fixe, and run on improved services/country in 3-4 years time.

I agree. I didn't vote for Labour to get vaguely the same sh.t we had before. The changes aren't coming fast enough, change costs money, so raise the money and make the changes already.

Also, beef up HMRC and go after big company tax avoidance...

[Tristan]

Also, beef up HMRC and go after big company tax avoidance...

Why stop at big companies? And why prioritise focusing on them at all? Small businesses (turnover under £10m, fewer than 20 employees) account for far more of the tax gap than big companies do. It was estimated that they accounted for 60% of the tax gap in '23-'24.

[TopBadger]

Why stop at big companies? And why prioritise focusing on them at all? Small businesses (turnover under £10m, fewer than 20 employees) account for far more of the tax gap than big companies do. It was estimated that they accounted for 60% of the tax gap in '23-'24.

Fair enough - go after them all.

[dyqik]

Also, beef up HMRC and go after big company tax avoidance...

Why stop at big companies? And why prioritise focusing on them at all?

Because you get a greater return on investment by investigating and prosecuting a big company than for a small company.

Small companies might make up more of the gap, but each one has to be dealt with separately, is probably a small sum evaded, and doesn't result in much deterrence. A big headline splash of a big company getting prosecuted does quite a bit for deterrence.

Also with small companies, gaps are more likely to be due to incompetence, mistakes, or lack of admin staff. That makes it harder to get a prosecution, and causes negative PR. Going after a large corporation with a large accounting staff is going after deliberate evasion.

[monkey]

Kier Starmer has my full confidence.

[Tristan]

Also, beef up HMRC and go after big company tax avoidance...

Why stop at big companies? And why prioritise focusing on them at all?

Because you get a greater return on investment by investigating and prosecuting a big company than for a small company.

Small companies might make up more of the gap, but each one has to be dealt with separately, is probably a small sum evaded, and doesn't result in much deterrence. A big headline splash of a big company getting prosecuted does quite a bit for deterrence.

Also with small companies, gaps are more likely to be due to incompetence, mistakes, or lack of admin staff. That makes it harder to get a prosecution, and causes negative PR. Going after a large corporation with a large accounting staff is going after deliberate evasion.

Your last point undermines your first one. If most of the small company gaps is incompetence, mistakes and lack of admin staff then you don't need difficult prosecutions to start addressing it. Providing support and streamlining processes are more likely to yield results here, assuming the small companies are acting in good faith.

Small companies account for 5x the gap that large companies do.

[dyqik]

Small companies account for 5x the gap that large companies do.

You keep saying that, but you haven't said how many more small companies are involved than big companies. If it's 100 times more (and I'd expect it's more than that given the likely scalings), then you're not making sense.

[Tristan]

Small companies account for 5x the gap that large companies do.

You keep saying that, but you haven't said how many more small companies are involved than big companies. If it's 100 times more (and I'd expect it's more than that given the likely scalings), then you're not making sense.

You’re assuming that the effort required grows at the same rate as the number of companies. Perhaps that would be the case if it was all the gap needed prosecutions to fix. But if it’s more likely down to errors etc. (as you claim) then solutions could be put in place that help many more companies meet their tax obligations.

[dyqik]

Small companies account for 5x the gap that large companies do.

You keep saying that, but you haven't said how many more small companies are involved than big companies. If it's 100 times more (and I'd expect it's more than that given the likely scalings), then you're not making sense.

You’re assuming that the effort required grows at the same rate as the number of companies. Perhaps that would be the case if it was all the gap needed prosecutions to fix. But if it’s more likely down to errors etc. (as you claim) then solutions could be put in place that help many more companies meet their tax obligations.

Eh? That's not what I'm talking about at all.